Stop and Frisk Violates Constitutional Rights Essay

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

The New York Police Department's stop and frisk has been around for several years and people recently have been taking action about it but this is a very important and useful practice that officer conduct on a daily base, police officer are doing the right thing especially if neighborhoods are known for criminal or violent activities then these people should be stopped, questioned and frisked, from January to June of 2013 the NYPD's report shows that African American and Hispanics are more active to commit crimes like robbery, rape, murder and manslaughter, felonious assault, grand larceny, misdemeanor sex crime, misdemeanor assault, petit larceny, criminal mischief, shootings, procession of drugs, firearms, and other illegal substance overall blacks and latinos being targeted not only because what they are wearing or how they but also cause of what the numbers show us. The new soon to be Major of New York Bill de Blasio has said that he is against the stop and frisk but many officers say that taking away the stop and frisk will increase crime tremendously, people are going to start to walk around with weapons, the whole point about the stop and frisk and why police officers conduct it many times is because they want the public to see that anyone can be patted down meaning that if they carry weapons with them then they will get arrested. Bill de Blasio has also said

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the

The NYPD’s stop and frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Departments own reports on its stop and frisk activity confirm what many people in

There has always been tension raised between maintaining a safe society and observing by the constitutional rights of its citizens. The New York City aggressive program of Stop and Frisk have been widely criticized and considered unconstitutional. However, Stop and Frisk, per se is not unconstitutional unless people are being stopped illegally. It 's a crime prevention tool that allows police officers to stop a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and to conduct a frisk based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. Some argue this policy was created to target minorities. Most of the people who have been stopped and frisked under this program have been African American or Hispanic. This concerns citizens and makes them oppose the policy because they believe its racial profiling and guided by color. Stop and frisk is now one of the biggest controversies in United States. It has become something that is affecting society in both a positive and negative way.

Eighty-seven percent of stops in 2012, were Black and Hispanic people. Compare that percentage to the amount of water on Earth, only seventy percent. Now, imagine eighty-seven percent water covering the Earth. That would make the world unbalanced and difficult to live in, which is how life is for the minorities impacted by Stop and Frisk. One of the most debated and controversial topics in New York City is the Stop and Frisk policy, and the impact it has on police, Latinos, and African Americans. Stop and Frisk fails to promote justice and equitable society because it creates a society where one group is lesser than another. The Stop and Frisk policy was created in Ohio, 1968, because of the a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio (US Courts).

The statistics show that to be an African American or Hispanic in New York you are more than twice as likely to get stopped as a white or Asian person. Studies of reports show that 15,000 or 30% of stops are deemed unconstitutional; and those are just the ones that are reported, imagine all of those that go unreported. Imagine all of those people who were victimized just because of the color of their skin. The stop-and-frisk procedure was once a good thing that helped clean up the streets, but now it’s becoming an epidemic of racial profiling, and teaching racism and intolerance to anyone who is a victim or witness of these stops.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments

Stop and Frisk started in New York City in the early 1990’s as a combined response to the “Broken Windows” sociological theory and the ruling in the Terry v. Ohio case. The initial prompt for this policy came from the ruling in the 1968 Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio. The court decided that fourth amendment rights are not violated when the police stop, detain, and search a suspect on the street. This ruling paved the way for early implementation of policies similar, but not as wide-spread, as stop and frisk. This ruling paved the way for early implementation of policies similar, but not as wide-spread, as stop and frisk. This theory alleges that by reducing petty crime you can also deter more major crime much in the same way as fixing broken windows (which are thought to invite potential thieves) will prevent future crime. Kelling’s theory combined with the Terry v. Ohio ruling eventually led to the implementation of full blown Stop and Frisk in the New York City area during the mayoral term of Rudi Giuliani. The idea behind stop and frisk initially was for police officers to patrol streets in order to stop those they suspected of carrying illegal goods and then frisk them to ascertain if they were indeed breaking any laws. This would serve duel purposes in that those found to be carrying illegal goods would be stopped while letting others in the area who may be participating in illegal activities know that there was an active police presence there, hopefully deterring

All Americans are entitled to their rights. The Fourth Amendment states that we the people have to deny search and seizures from law enforcement without a warrant. The fourth amendment generally prohibits police from entering a home without a warrant unless the circumstances fit an established exception to the warrant requirement. According to the book The Constitution: Our Written Legacy by Joseph A. Melusky, the Fourth Amendment gives the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although we are entitled to these rights, police sometimes use and abuse their authority. In many cases, the Fourth Amendment has helped prove the innocence of one’s actions.

The stop, question, and frisk policy was implemented in the NYPD in an effort to make the city a safer place. With weapons becoming more easily accessible than ever, they are becoming more of a problem, and officers and the general public are now in more danger than ever of being killed by a firearm, knife, or a weapon. Although the policy is intended to prevent harm and protect society, it has been under major scrutiny in not only the past few years, but also the past few decades as well. Due to the fact that minorities are believed to be the main target of this policing tactic, many people have argued it is inherently corrupt should be abolished. On the other hand, it has shown to provide some positive outcomes and as a result, it is a necessary

The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop and frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino. In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times. 605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent). 350,743 were black (53 percent). 223,740

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things seized.”

As said by the Fourth Amendment, " the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against an unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things be seized." In simplest terms the Fourth Amendment says that all searches are to be conducted under authority of a warrant( Barany). Many times this amendment is violated which can result in the dismissal of a case, release of a guilty suspect, or the arrest of an innocent individual that was not properly been given his or her rights. In this paper topics involving the violations and

Stop and frisk practices may have helped reduce crime (Zimring, 2006), especially regarding robberies and burglaries (Smith & Purtell, 2008). This is a statistic that has been shown in many areas that stop and frisk has been used but the causality issue is present. Stop and frisk practices, in general, are not unconstitutional, but the way it has been utilized has been. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) supported an independent monitoring to overlook reforming stop and frisk for New York City (La Vigne, Nancy G., 2014).